Proposition 50K1375

Projet de loi modifiant l'arrêté royal du 15 mars 1968 portant règlement général sur les conditions techniques auxquelles doivent répondre les véhicules automobiles, leurs remorques, leurs éléments ainsi que les accessoires de sécurité, en vue d'améliorer la visibilité des usagers vulnérables pour les chauffeurs de camions et d'autocars.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Jan. 19, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

road safety

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

June 6, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the report that was drafted during the committee meetings. I would like to point out that I will also speak during the general discussion.

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, ladies ministers, dear colleagues, every year fifteen people die in traffic as a result of the dead corner. Eleven people were seriously wounded and thirty lightly wounded. Together, there are fifty-six traffic casualties as a result of a very simple fact, namely that a truck driver or bus driver turning to the right does not see the cyclist or pedestrian to the right of him. Fortunately, everyone seems to be increasingly convinced of the usefulness of a dive-angle mirror or other technical interventions that improve side vision.

It was once different. In 1999, when that problem came to the surface and became known in our country, the dodeangle mirror has also come to the market. Immediately in November 1999, we interrogated Minister Durant on that problem, referring to the safe Netherlands where her colleague, Minister Netelenbos, granted subsidies to truck drivers or bus drivers who voluntarily wanted to provide their vehicles with a dode-angle mirror. Minister Durant found that was not the right path and referred to possible European initiatives that should address that problem. This will be resolved during the Belgian Presidency of the European Union.

In the meantime, three years have passed. We have heard and read a lot of statements on this issue in Parliament and especially in the media. Since November 2001, the Council of Ministers, with Prime Minister or Minister Durant at the forefront, has held a press conference on this issue four times, saying that a royal decree would be drawn up or a circular letter would be made. Within six months, the government had four press conferences to say that it would resolve the problem. Well, we are three years later, but there is still no obligation to introduce a dive-angle mirror on trucks and buses. This works on everyone’s nerves, especially on the nerves of organizations such as the Cyclists’ Federation and the Pedestrians’ Movement, but also on everyone in Parliament who takes good care of road safety.

As a result, colleague Malcorps of Agalev submitted to the Senate a bill to amend that royal decree by law. Legalistically, this is not very good, but also among the Greens the patience was lost and Senator Malcorps submitted a bill. The senators followed him in that and approved that bill well, knowing that this legislature is actually not good, but ⁇ hoping that Minister Durant would meanwhile issue the necessary royal decree. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Therefore, this problem was taken over, among other things, by Mrs. Brepoels in the House, ⁇ again in the hope that Minister Durant would issue a royal decree, so that we should not approve a law to amend the royal decree. That ended in a proposal from the green corner. This, however, is another proposal for a resolution to urge Minister Durant to issue that royal decree.

It is typical of the approach to road safety. I also refer, for example, to greater safety for cyclists in the traffic, for which you have submitted very important legislative proposals from Agalev and SP.A, but for which Ms Durant does not make royal decrees. You then turn to the technique of resolution to encourage your own minister to take the necessary initiatives. That is very regrettable. A lot of time is wasted. It is unacceptable.

The only advantage of this too slow decision-making process is that some improvements can be made. In the royal decree requiring a dead-angle mirror, several significant improvements have been made over the course of the months.

In the first version, the obligation was limited to trucks. We have pointed out this to the Minister in the Committee. The royal decree was then expanded to include buses and buses.

The Bond Beter Leefmilieu had determined that in the draft royal decree only new types of trucks were mentioned. A new type means something different than a new vehicle. This has also been adjusted by the Minister.

So now there is a royal decree that should be issued as soon as possible. Therefore, during the discussion, the resolution was tightened and therefore the resolution asks the Minister to finally issue the royal decree before 1 September 2002. This also happened at my request.

I use this discussion to ask Mrs. Minister to further sharpen the draft royal decree, which she explained in the committee. I have a few good reasons for this. The first reason is the start date. If the resolution is adopted and the Minister issues the royal decree before 1 September 2002, the obligation of the dead-angle mirror for new vehicles will enter into force on 1 January 2004. The Minister refers to European directives.

Very recently, young cyclists, schoolchildren, lost their lives because of the lack of a dead-angle mirror. Therefore, I think we need to have the courage to advance the start date by one year to 1 January 2003. You may be wondering if this is the case for Europe. Does anyone in this hemisphere think that there would be a protest if we imposed the obligation on 1 January 2003 instead of 1 January 2004, as Europe required? If there were a protest, what would happen to that protest? We have every reason to put the start date on 1 January 2003 in this country.

A second adjustment, which I am proposing today in an amendment, is that we would not limit ourselves to new vehicles. According to the statistics of the Belgian Institute for Traffic Safety, there are 600,000 trucks, buses and buses in Belgium. Every year, 30,000 new vehicles are added. The obligation then applies only to one twentieth of all vehicles. If we do not go further in the scheme, it means that it will take years for older trucks and buses to be equipped with a dead-angle mirror. We cannot wait for this anymore.

We cannot wait any longer either. I know that the Minister says that subsidies will be given for existing vehicles. However, I thought that the budget provided only 500,000 euros for 600,000 vehicles. I do not think that there will be a lot of incentives. I also know that the federal and Flemish governments have made circular letters to impose the obligation in the procurement records. That, however, is a big breakthrough in achieving that existing trucks and buses are equipped with the dead-angle mirror. A new fact is the opinion issued by the Flemish Government to Mrs. Durant on 24 May, after we had the discussion in the committee. In this context, the Flemish government — I suspect they are doing so on behalf of Agalev, SPA, VLD and Spirit — asks to impose this new obligation of dode-angle mirrors also on existing buses and trucks. If the Flemish government requests this on behalf of all Flemish parties, we must include this here in our resolution.

This is why we submitted two amendments. The first amendment aims to change the date of entry into force of the Royal Decree from 1 January 2004 to 1 January 2003. We know that a problem might arise from Europe. In a second amendment, we also impose the obligation on existing vehicles, as requested by the Flemish Government in its opinion for this Royal Decree.

Every year 15 people die in traffic as a result of the dead corner. This cannot and should not continue. We therefore urge you to publish this Royal Decree before 1 September 2002 and please also ensure that the obligation enters into force on 1 January 2003 instead of 1 January 2004 and that the obligation also applies to all trucks and all buses, whether new or old.

The floor is yielded to Mrs. Brepoels, who is the author of one of the proposals.

Mr. Speaker, ladies ministers, colleagues, it has indeed been exactly a year since the Senate unanimously approved, as Mr. Ansoms already said, a bill that makes dead-angle mirror mandatory in our country. A year later we are here in the House and I understand that we do not find a majority here to approve the same proposal. Instead, the majority parties are content to formulate a number of recommendations to the government. Understand who can understand. Nevertheless, I would like to call on colleagues to take responsibility for this important road safety document.

In his policy statement in October 2001, the Prime Minister had the opportunity to state that he and his government wanted to implement a very important priority over the course of this year, in particular road safety. In the last sentence of the policy statement on road traffic casualties, the Prime Minister says that the “dead-angle mirror” will be introduced “as quickly and efficiently as possible”, the motto we already know of this government.

Aside from many discussions and promises, very little has come out of the bus. As is the case with a lot of purple-green files, the government says that road safety policy is a priority, but does not carry out policy. We concluded last week in the Infrastructure Committee that when discussing proposals related to, for example, traffic fines — a subdivision into other categories or an increase thereof — and the other points, the government has still not submitted a bill. A lot has already been promised in this regard. I would like to quote from a few press articles that appeared on this topic last year. "New trucks should be fitted with a mirror next year." The government would use the Presidency of the European Union to prepare that directive.

“The government promises prizes for the dead-angle mirror.” The government is said to have reached an agreement with the automotive industry to grant subsidies for the mirroring of existing trucks.

"The government is approving a draft royal decree and is not waiting for a European commitment," he said. Belgium will be the first country to introduce a mandatory mirror.

This is a very good example of a Verhofstadt type file and purple-green. The problem is known. Each year, the lack of the mirror causes 15 to 20 deaths. There have been many discussions about it and, as colleague Ansoms said, at the regularity of an hour, the government makes announcements, alternating through you, Mrs. Durant, or through the Prime Minister.

What are we fixing? After two and a half years of rioting, the government has done nothing but panically draft a draft royal decree. The draft was approved by the Council of Ministers, not in order to be in favour of Europe, but in order to be able to issue national legislation so-called faster after the amendment of the European Directive, which implies that, like in Europe, the mandatory installation of the bottom-angle mirror in Belgium will be introduced no earlier than 1 January 2004. When we look at the figures, colleagues, that death will result in 30 cycling casualties, though their deaths could have been prevented. We have read striking testimonies, not only from the Bicycle Federation, but also from the Association of Parents of Traffic Victims.

I quote from a statement from the Cyclists’ Federation: “Despite this overwhelming situation, the federal government manages to send messages to the world as if the mandatory installation of a dead-angle mirror in Belgium were already for tomorrow. The federal government is shedding sand in our eyes. Hiting a beautiful figure is clearly more important than making effective life-saving political decisions. This conscious communication policy of the federal government creates the false sense that the “dead-angle mirror” would already be mandatory from this year.”

“It is shameful and dramatic for the families and drivers who have suffered lifelong injuries in a dead-end accident to know that there are good technical means to prevent it.” The disappointment is great, not only with these associations but with everyone who looks at this situation with a little common sense. I wonder what motivates us not to take these measures. It is clear that Belgium has not made sufficient efforts during the European Presidency. Why does the Minister continue to oppose national legislation pending European legislation? I have already argued that Parliament in the committee has saved neither time nor effort to remedy this. Many colleagues have continually asked questions and interpellations to the Minister since the beginning of this government. All the reasons were good not to act. At first, they wanted to carry out pilot projects, then consult with the transport federations, then it was a European problem, and finally the European Presidency. Eventually, in the spring of 2001, two bills were submitted, one in the Senate by Mr Malcorps and one by me here in the House. I was very pleased when the Senate immediately went into discussion. After a very extensive discussion, in which a lot of outsiders as well as the regions were heard, the Senate unanimously approved the introduction of a mirror. It took until the end of February of this year before we could begin the discussion in the committee because the members of the majority parties were not present four or five times in sufficient number to discuss this proposal. Strangely, when the discussion finally began, it quickly turned out that the government and the majority parties were no longer planning to pursue this parliamentary initiative. Before the vote could take place, the Agalev-Ecolo Group submitted a draft resolution with sufficient urgency, in my opinion, to distract the attention from this legislative initiative. In this resolution, the fate of the dead-angle mirror is again fully in the hands of the government and the Minister of Transport. We know what that means. Own national legislation would not be possible, this would be contrary to European law. by

Mrs. Minister, I do not know whether it was only your fault or that you may have been blocked in the government by other parties, but it is clear that you have made little effort to fully explore and use the legal possibilities in this regard. This is in contrast to the Netherlands where after the one-and-a-half-year subsidy scheme in early March of this year, the government took the initiative to make the dead-angle mirror mandatory for all trucks this year. Minister Netelenbos was disappointed that a one-and-a-half-year agreement with the transport sector and the subsidies that the government had released for the dead-angle mirror only led to a quarter of trucks having such a mirror.

The minister was also apparently not prepared to move forward on European legislation after the daughter of a well-known Dutch writer was killed by a truck. Eventually, when the government realized that an arrangement at European level was no longer in place during the presidency, it promptly announced that the bottom-angle would be mandatory by royal decree before the end of the year. Subsequently, it appeared that the decision, as adopted by the Council of Ministers on 7 December 2001, concerned a draft royal decree which had yet to be followed by a complete procedure with, inter alia, the opinion of the regions and the Council of State. You have stated that Europe would no longer be expected. This will deliberately throw sand in the eyes of the public opinion, because they will wait for that European legislation. Instead of approving a national legislation prior to the amendment of the European Directive, it is hoped that this amendment will take place at the same time as the final approval of the Belgian Royal Decrees in the Council of Ministers.

In addition to this legal advisory procedure, consultations with the transport sector and truck manufacturers are also needed. It is shocking that the obligation will not be introduced until the sector is ready. I think this is the completely reverse world. It’s not because the manufacturers did not have dive-angle equipment on their 2002 models that this cannot be required. Since when has a government that primates the economy accepted the road safety of its citizens?

I hope that our colleagues will soon make this consideration with honour and conscience. The Parliament can therefore only approve the draft law and the attached proposal, which would allow the mandatory introduction of that necessary bottom-angle level to take place this year.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the question of the Dobli mirrors illustrates well one of the main concerns of our fellow citizens, namely road safety. by

Whether for personal purposes, as road users, or as parents of children who go to school on foot or bicycle, or as representatives of the nation, the number of road accidents victims constantly interpelates us. It is therefore natural that anyone who has knowledge, for example, of technical measures capable of reducing the number of victims should make sure that such technical progress can be implemented as quickly as possible for the benefit of the greatest number.

The very special parliamentary course of the resolution proposal, which is subject to a note of approval, deserves to be waited for a few moments.

At the beginning of a bill from the Senate, our assembly is called to examine a bill. The question of the Dobli mirrors mainly belonging to the executive power, without mentioning, for example, the European framework since a European directive could regulate the matter, the House could not adopt as such this project without jeopardizing one of the founding principles of our parliamentary democracy: the separation of powers.

The solution found for the Dobli was balanced on the one we had held when we had to vote on a Senate proposal that became a bill on the speed limit in the vicinity of schools. I want to talk about the resolution.

In the field of road safety, which falls within many levels of power and which therefore requires a heavy and slow procedure of consultations, or even of consultations, we must therefore prefer to resort to a proposal for a resolution rather than to believe that the legislator can replace the different competent executive.

We therefore hope that in the future, the resolution proposal will benefit members of our assembly and our colleagues in the Senate to settle this type of matter.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, every time a fatal accident occurs due to the lack of a dead or blind-angle mirror or similar equipment, from the Cabinet of the Minister messages were sent to the world that the file was being processed. Apparently this was not enough because at some point, at the end of last year, even the Prime Minister felt it necessary to make his contribution to the debate. The dead or blind-angle mirror on trucks and buses would be mandatory from early this year. Everything would be in order. The Belgian Presidency had taken the necessary steps and whether or not Europe would participate; Belgium would in any case take the lead.

The media in this country knew; they took this eagerly. What happened? This measure was a fact, at least that was the impression that was supposed to create in the public opinion. Look at what we all have done for road safety. Everything is OK. It turns out, by the way, that impression has arisen not only in this file but also in other files. Take, for example, the increase in fines. The impression was created that everything was in order, that everything was realized. However, nothing is less true. In addition to the harsh words in the Government Declaration of 14 July 1999, in addition to the harsh words in the successive policy notes of the Minister whose texts are re-copied every year and poured into a new text with a different year above it and in addition to the measures proposed at press conferences, a lot of legislative work has actually not been much talked about so far.

It is not because after three years of government there has been a media moment in connection with the State-General, that the population should now cheer as if it is going in the right direction with road safety. On the contrary, the accidents of the last weeks and months indicate that it is still not going in the right direction with that road safety. Their

I have already said here that apart from a royal decree on the use of GSM in the car and a royal decree that recently appeared over the zones 30 kilometers per hour and a single circular letter, we have not seen much until today. I remain with that position. After three years of purple-green, with a green minister at the head of the Department of Transport and Infrastructure, we should have expected something more. Until today, no law has appeared in the Belgian Staatsblad of your hand, Mrs. Minister, on road safety.

The [...]

Can you tell me what law has been published in the State Gazette on road safety? There have been two royal decrees appearing, as mentioned. They appeared and there are two. Their

Mr. Speaker, you have received a letter from the Prime Minister containing a list of legislative texts that could be dealt with by the House before the summer vacation. Except for my mistake, I see the design of road safety still not on that list. It is currently still on the list of draft projects that are being discussed by the Council of Ministers and which are yet to be submitted to the Council of State. I hope, Mrs. Minister, that this is already back from the State Council and that one of these days we could finally discuss that bill in the House.

The impression that could arise if everything was going well is entirely false. This also applies to the Dobli mirror or similar equipment. Today we vote — finally — on a proposal for a resolution that came only thanks to the ongoing efforts of the opposition in general and of Mrs Brepoels in particular. Then it remains with a proposal for a resolution and later it will not become a bill to which approval could be attached. This also characterizes the mentality of this majority, which constantly indicates that they have confidence in the government, something that is repeatedly insinuated by a cabinet employee. Their

What we are facing now has had many feet in the earth. First and foremost, this is due to the fact that the majority was too often absent during the discussion of legislative initiatives in the committee. It seemed like we had something different and better to do. Eventually, after months of delay, the committee succeeded in rejecting a bill that could have come into effect immediately and unanimously approving a proposal for a resolution, though with good intentions, but also with a wretched follow-up. Let me be clear about the content.

Let me be clear about the content. Our group is, of course, in favour of this resolution and of all measures that contribute to road safety. The technique of modifying a royal decree by a law may not have been the ideal method, but it indicated that the initiative was at Parliament, that the Parliament did what the government instructed to do. Even now we note that this resolution is not going far enough. Therefore, I think it is desirable to approve the amendments of colleague Ansoms, as the obligation should of course also apply to the trucks already registered. Isn’t it too absurd that, especially when we talk about road safety, we ⁇ ’t treat everyone equally? It would be terrible, however, to have to find out that a child, a man, a woman is driven to death by a driver of a truck that was not yet to be equipped with a dead-end mirror. Therefore, I believe that the amendment of Mr. Ansoms deserves to be voted.

Finally, we must not lose sight of the fact that the blind- and blind-angle mirrors and similar equipment are only an element within the framework of road safety. Much more is needed, ⁇ in the areas of driving training, checks, enforcement policies and infrastructure measures. If we talk about it, then we can only state that this is a regional matter, while traffic rules, traffic codes, controls and penalties are a federal jurisdiction. That’s where the shoe runs. A good road safety policy cannot be conducted with fragmented powers in a country with at least two speeds, literally and figuratively. This causes problems of coordination, time, consultation, and so on. The regionalization of road safety policy should not be confessed in words, it must actually be done. I think that opportunity was sparked with the discussion of the Lambermont Agreement.

Despite our fundamental comment on the attitude of the government and the majority party, our group will support all measures that promote road safety. I therefore hope that after the adoption of the amendments of Mr Ansoms, we can unanimously support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, ladies ministers, today we are discussing a proposal for a resolution that will encourage the government to take a number of important steps for a thorough approach to the dead angle in large vehicles in general. I say a proposal for a resolution because — and there has been a lot of discussion about it, not only on the basis of this proposal, but also on the basis of other proposals — the instrument of the royal decree is more suitable than the initiative of a bill. I would like to point out, first and foremost, that this government, this Minister of Transport, will take, or has already taken, a number of measures to encourage the use of the dead-angle mirror on trucks.

On 7 January 2002, under the impetus of the Belgian Presidency of the European Union, a first proposal for a European directive was adopted, which seeks the mandatory installation of the dead-angle mirror for all new trucks. Of course, I realize that Belgium was no longer president at that time, but a new presidency can not realize such a thing seven days after one comes into office. The proposal must therefore really be written at the expense of the Belgian Presidency. I would like to point out that it was eleven years ago that the regulation on the mandatory mirrors for trucks was still amended.

Secondly, all trucks over 3.5 tonnes that were already voluntarily equipped by the company or by the owner with a recognised system of dead-angle mirror could, from 2 May 2002, for the first time be free of charge technically checked, as an incentive.

The [...]

In politics, much is possible.

All trucks of the federal government must be equipped with a blind-angle mirror in mid-2003, and this also applies to trucks of companies wishing to perform public procurement. In this regard, I refer to an amendment approved by a member of the opposition. The required royal decrees will be submitted to Parliament by 1 September 2002.

Furthermore, I also point out that the problem of the dead-end will finally become a mandatory part of the training of drivers in the driving schools.

A number of information campaigns have already been carried out; they will continue to be intensified. In addition, consultations will be conducted with the sector concerned, in order to move voluntarily to a general placement of those mirrors in the course of the next year.

I heard the criticism from the opposition that too little was done and that everything goes too slowly. I agree with it. When it comes to road safety, things cannot progress quickly enough. The problem of the dead-angle in all large vehicles, but in particular in the large tractors with attachments, is a very serious issue.

The dead-angle mirror has rightly become a heavily politically loaded symbol in the struggle for a safer traffic.

No matter how little that all may be — on this point the opposition and majority opinions differ — and no matter how slow things go, all that the government and the majority do is won, for it is more than what the previous did. The current government is the first to do something about the problem and that can be said for a moment. Whether you like it or not – and I admit that I don’t like it – the obligation of the dode-angle mirror, both on new and old trucks in Belgium, depends on the European technical regulations on the production of trucks. Only one truck brand is produced in Belgium. In addition, a large number of foreign trucks are circulating on our roads, with a foreign number plate. The final solution must therefore be pushed through at European level.

Numerous serious studies have been conducted on this subject, both by some institutions and by truck manufacturers, and they all show that the dead-end mirrors do indeed reduce the number of tragic accidents drastically; one thinks even between 60% and 80%.

The symbolism is heavily loaded and the impression is created as if the dode-angle mirror, which though is an important part of the solution, will wipe out the problem of the track, but that will not be the case. The total disappearance of such accidents is not guaranteed even with those conscious mirrors and that is already forgotten. A French brand is thinking of making the right door of the trucks entirely of glass, like in a bus. This can also help. One thinks about placing sensors or cameras and equipping the bearings with a closed chassis from now on because that can also help. Their

Furthermore, information and awareness of drivers and vulnerable road users remains essential. Finally, we must also not forget that an urgent adaptation of our infrastructure and our intersections is absolutely necessary. I refer to a crossroads in my own region, in Halle. Collega Pieters is not there, but I am talking about the intersection of the Edingse stone road and the Bergense stone road, where several large transport companies are located nearby. That crossroads were notorious for the number of death corner accidents every year. For a year, there have been no more dead-end accidents there, not because all those companies drive with those mirrors at once, but because the arrangement of the intersection has been drastically modified to make such accidents impossible. In this regard, the government also has an important responsibility.

Nothing prevents the transport sector from paying more attention to this problem itself and already moving to this generalized placement. In addition, I would like to point out that the companies that produce the mirrors themselves find that the sales of those mirrors have indeed increased drastically. Their

Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you three things. Can you complete the required royal decrees as soon as possible? Can you consult with the transport sector on a voluntary introduction of the dotted-angle mirror, even before a European regulation has been drawn up? I also point out the information campaigns for drivers and other road users. I think of the schools. Too many little children go on crossings with their bicycles angrily next to those big mastodonts. I would like to ask you not only to continue those information campaigns, but also to intensify them.

Mr. President, I have to apologize to Mr. Valkeniers, who would have liked to be present here. At this moment — two minutes for seven — he is entering into marriage, colleagues. I wanted to tell you that.

It is not necessary, right?

If it should be, then it can be in a liberal party, colleagues. Their

Colleagues, it is always pleasant to intervene on a matter that we actually agree on, beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition. Mr. Speaker, the discussions in the committee have shown that everyone is absolutely agreed on the principle of the introduction of the dead-angle mirror. It is, of course, the task of the opposition to go beyond what is immediately feasible and to question the timing and practical implementation. Basically, Mrs. Minister, we all agree, which is demonstrated by the unanimous adoption of the resolution.

Collega Vanoost has already outlined in detail your efforts in connection with the European initiatives. The Belgian government has anticipated the adoption of European measures and their transposition. We already have a royal decree requiring the placement of systems, expanding the field of view for all new trucks weighing more than 3.5 tons and for buses and buses. Their

The federal government itself has given a good example. With a circular letter, Minister Durant has mandated the installation of dead-angle mirrors on trucks that fall under the federal government. All orders for the purchase of trucks by the federal government include these provisions. All contractors performing works for the federal government are required to equip their trucks with a dotted-angle mirror. It is the merit of the government that it has sensitized all public administrations and government companies with circular letters throughout Flanders and Belgium to equip their trucks with dode-angle mirrors. All over the country, municipalities and intercommunals have already equipped their own trucks with dive-angle mirrors. This is, among other things, the case with the intercommunal of the city of Lokeren, which obliges its contractors to install dodeangle mirrors. The city of Antwerp has done the same. All public administrations and government companies drive their own mirrors and require their contractors to do the same. In terms of awareness and voluntarism — something CD&V believes in — progress has been made.

Meanwhile, the government is continuing its negotiations with the transport sector to equip the trucks put into service with a dead-angle mirror by 2003 and ⁇ by 2004. Mr. Leterme, you believe in volunteering, in the market and in the freight transport sector. If the sector agrees to voluntarily drive with the dead-angle mirror before 2004, this Parliament can only welcome that. It honors the Minister that she is in full discussion with the transport sector in order to voluntarily place the dead-end mirror eventually earlier than the planned date of 2004.

Colleagues, the unanimity and common concern that has been shown in the committee and may be confirmed today in this plenary session has been reflected in the unanimous approval of the amendments by Mr Ansoms, who is rightly very concerned about road safety. Its two amendments aim to ensure that, before 1 September, all practical measures are taken to enable the practical implementation of the decisions and the circular letters and to incorporate the use of the dead-angle mirror in the training of truck drivers. These are very constructive amendments. The committee unanimously accepted them.

Mr. President, can I ask Mr. Van Campenhout whether he will have the same positive attitude compared to the two amendments I submitted today?

Mr. Ansoms, I expected this question. In my introduction I have stated that it is pleasant to address resolutions that everyone agrees with. However, I have added that it is the task of the opposition to go beyond what is feasible.

I think your amendments in the committee were constructive and feasible. We unanimously approved them. I think your amendments today are very constructive, but less feasible. Unfortunately, we cannot approve them.

Mr. Van Campenhout, this government has been working for three years. Are you prepared to postpone the discussion for a week, if any, and to continue again in the committee, so that the two amendments of Mr Ansoms can be thoroughly reviewed? We postpone it for a week and then we can vote on it next week. We have been working on it for three years now. I suggest that we go back to the committee for another week to discuss those important amendments of Mr Ansoms. We will be able to discuss this proposal unanimously next week.

I think the proposal of colleague Mortelmans is very meaningful. At the time we discussed this resolution and Mrs. Brepoels’ bill, we were not in possession of the opinion of the Flemish government. On 24 May, the Flemish Government issued an opinion on the draft royal decree, in which it, on behalf of your party, on behalf of the SP.A and I suspect on behalf of Agalev — I have the text with me — gives favorable advice on the use of vision-field improvement systems in trucks and buses. According to the design, new vehicles of that type should be equipped with such systems. However, the Flemish government urges that existing buses and trucks also be obliged to install such systems. On 24 May this was requested by the Flemish government and thus Mr. Mortelmans’s proposal would be very meaningful. Let us examine this opinion for a moment in the committee and eventually again unanimously approve those amendments.

Mr. Van Campenhout, Mr. Vanoost would like to say another word. You see that you have a lot of success.

Mr. Speaker, as colleague Ansoms said so well, I would like to point out that the Flemish Region has indeed given a positive opinion on this proposal for a royal decree.

Mr. Speaker, this is a shame. I read the entire text of the decision of the Flemish government. It also calls for the mandatory use of existing buses and trucks.

It may be mandatory tomorrow. However, it is not about that. Everyone agrees on this. As colleague Van Campenhout has said, it is intellectually unfair that you want to push this, while you know that if we would introduce such a measure, it would be abolished at European level.

That is not true.

Let Mr. Van Campenhout present his presentation now.

Colleague Mortelmans, as I said, we have been able to sufficiently study these amendments, which are in place today. From now on, you may be able to read the Belgian Staatsblad for your argument, so that you know which draft laws on road safety are already in force.

The [...]

Mr. President, I would like to hear from Mr. Van Campenhout which draft law on road safety has already appeared in the Staatsblad. Then I will admit that I made a mistake.

You should ask the Minister, not me. and laughing)

Mr Van Campenhout, [...]

It is also a matter that is often settled by royal decree.

It is often said that the parliament works badly and votes poorly-written laws. As mentioned by Mr. Bellot at the tribune, I also want to say that this is a good legislative work and that the royal decrees cannot be changed by laws. In this case, the legal norm is respected. You must be clear and honest about the work that has been done.

This is an old story, Madame. I remember it. We talked about it when I was in charge of the Department of Communications.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the dode-angle mirror must come, or that comes through a bill or a bill, it does not matter. I thought this legal debate in the committee meeting was exhausted. It is clear that we want to introduce this with a royal decree. In the constructive attitude of this majority, we have approved the amendment of Mr Ansoms to do so before 1 September 2003.

In my opinion, all conditions have thus been fulfilled in a constructive attitude to ensure that Belgian trucks are equipped with rear-angle mirrors no later than 2004, but with the cooperation of the sector already in 2003. I am talking very clearly about Belgian trucks. However, this is not the case for all trucks driving in Belgium. Therefore, I think that we must make efforts in this regard to reach a uniform European arrangement. Belgium is a transit country. It is not because Belgium will now take a lead in the use of the dode-angle mirror that we should not sensitize the European partners to also equip their trucks with a dode-angle mirror.

Mr Ansoms, as mentioned, we unanimously approve this resolution, as well as the constructive and feasible amendments from the committee meeting. Unfortunately, we cannot approve the amendments presented today, which are constructive but not feasible. In any case, today an important unanimous step is taken to promote road safety in our country.

Every year, several dozen cyclists and bromcyclists are killed or seriously injured. Everyone has remembered that. The Government has done everything and will do everything to make Belgium the first Member State to impose a concrete obligation to equip trucks and buses with mirrors or cameras.

On the Belgian Presidency, I can guarantee the following. Belgium has used the Presidency of the European Union to place the problem of the dead corner as a priority on the European agenda. Please do not apologize, but the mandatory equipment of vehicles is first and foremost a European competence. This is ⁇ the case if there are mandatory guidelines, which is true for rear-view mirrors. On our roads, more than half of the trucks come from abroad, from Europe or even from around the world. Under our influence and pressure, the European Commission approved this adaptation of the European Directive on 7 January 2002. Meanwhile, under our pressure, this proposal has already been approved by the European Parliament. The proposal is now being examined by the European Council. This is not my advice, but the Internal Market Council. However, I have to regret a bad forecast. Another Member State, in particular Italy, is trying to delay that decision. Nevertheless, the Belgian government will continue to insist on an approval as soon as possible, thus eliminating that pressure.

At the Belgian level, on my proposal, several amendments to the technical regulation have been adopted; they will make the equipment of buses and trucks with visibility improvement systems mandatory from 1 July 2003 for new models and from 1 July 2004 for all new vehicles. These deadlines should allow manufacturers to review the cabin design and adapt it. by

These texts were the subject of a positive opinion from the Administration-Industry Commission, in accordance with the required procedure. They could be sent to the regions on March 29th, last year, for advice. by

Mrs. Brepoels, we can regret that there are regions and that they take time to give their opinion! All regions submitted their opinions and the Flemish Region was last, i.e. on 2 May. I regret it. I could not move forward earlier in the case. You said you are wasting time. I am sorry, but there are procedures and they must be followed. by

The file will be continuously sent to the State Council. I remain in the direction despite the appeal brought by Italy before the European Commission to contest the date of entry into force of the Belgian text pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 98/34/EC. by

On my proposal, in October 2001, the Council of Ministers also decided to ensure that, in addition to the initiatives taken at the European level concerning the dead-angle mirror level for trucks, all trucks of the fleet of federal government agencies are equipped with adequate equipment. In January 2002, the Council of Ministers approved a circular letter. Mr. Van Campenhout has already talked about this together with others. It provides for the mandatory installation of visual field improvement systems on trucks over 3.5 tons belonging to the State and its dependent public utility institutions by the middle of 2003. The circulation letter also stipulates that the obligation shall be included in all records for the purchase of the vehicles in question. The circular letter was published on 16 February 2002.

De tweede rondzendbrief, die door de Ministerraad op 30 January 2002 was goedgekeurd, bepaalt dat de bestekken voor de overheidsopdrachten voor werken of vervoer een clausule moeten bevatten die eist dat de gebruikte vrachtwagens met dodehoekspiegels of camera's being uitgerust. Die rondzendbrief wurde op 20 March 2002 gepubliceerd in trad in werking op 1 May. Last but not least, there is a system of subsidies and incentives for existing trucks in Belgium to encourage the implementation of this system. For this purpose, we have concluded with the Board of Directors of the Automotive Inspection Fund, the granting of a credit of 500,000 euros which will result in the free passage to the technical inspection. This measure has been in force since May 1st. A first assessment is scheduled with the road transport sector on June 10, in a few days so and then we will work together on the extension of the measure to the existing park, which should be equipped for mid-2003.

Finally, I would like to discuss with you the thesis of those who believe that we could quickly make this installation on existing vehicles obligatory from 2003 and who refer to a measure that would have been taken by the Netherlands.

The Dutch policy has so far always been focused on a voluntary installation that has been encouraged by a subsidy scheme since 1999. This is now the case with us too.

On 26 April 2002, the Dutch Government reviewed the efforts already made. On that basis, it has decided to proceed, partly due to electoral considerations just before the elections, to the introduction of the obligation to equip all Dutch trucks with a mirror by 1 January 2003. From the information I have at my disposal, I conclude that the technical details of the arrangement are yet to be drawn up, that this text must still be submitted to both chambers and forwarded to the Council of State and the European Commission for opinion. I also know that this so-called obligation cannot be hardened. A truck that is not equipped with a mirror or camera by 2003 and which meets the applicable standards of the existing directives on rear-view levels must be authorised by the Dutch government. Dutch lawyers have great doubts whether the European Commission will agree with the Dutch initiative. There is very strong resistance from some countries.

Mrs. Brepoels, that has nothing to do with the government’s will to put the economy at the forefront of road safety. It has to do with feasibility. Good conscience is important to us. This is a big problem for everyone. However, I do not want to take, in the name of the good conscience, a measure that can be abolished a few months later.

I also point out that a solution to the dead-end problem cannot be limited to better equipment for trucks and buses, as Mr Vanoost said. This is, of course, an important measure that should be taken as soon as possible. However, we know that other measures can also help. Constant efforts are needed to raise the awareness of cyclists and bromebookers about the danger of the dead corner. Traffic infrastructure should be designed in such a way as to ensure mutual visibility between road users. Drivers of trucks and buses should learn to take into account the problem of the dead corner in their training. We have addressed this element during the discussion of this resolution in the Infrastructure Committee.

In conclusion, the government will not faint in its determination to become a precursor in this field, in a quick but sustainable timeframe. by

We must avoid giving ourselves a good conscience today by choosing a earlier date that would risk leading to the abolition of this obligation, in which case I assure you that at the level of citizens and victims, the message would be largely counterproductive. by

Everything will be done to move forward, but a number of elements must be taken into account in order for this obligation to apply to all trucks on our roads, including European and foreign trucks. by

It is true that both a Belgian procedural calendar and a European calendar must be taken into account. Under the pretext of wanting to act quickly and strongly, we would risk seeing the European rules repeal our decision.

Does anyone ask the word? (No) Somebody asks-t-il yet the word? (Not to)

The discussion is closed. The discussion is close.

The text adopted by the committee serves as the basis for the discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I will make another effort to convince my colleagues in a positive way to approve my amendments. This is a resolution, not a bill. We are addressing a recommendation to the Government to issue a royal decree in connection with the obligation of the dead-angle mirror. In my two amendments, I request that the date of entry be advanced from 1 January 2004 to 1 January 2003. There may be problems at European level, but it is not certain. The Minister himself referred to a Dutch initiative. The purple government has submitted a bill itself, not knowing what Europe is going to say. Let us do that too. Mr Vanoost, I refer to other files, for example the problem of the vulnerable areas that were dealt with in the Flemish Parliament and by the Flemish government. The Flemish government also sends a file to Europe, not knowing whether Europe will agree to it, but it does it anyway. Why can’t that be in a file on an important issue of road safety? I urge that we recommend the Government to set the entry date on 1 January 2003.

Second, the obligation should also apply to trucks in use. It is not unimportant, however, that the most important region of our country, the Flemish Region, explicitly asks Ms Durant to impose the obligation also for the trucks and buses in use. Is it then abnormal that we ask in a recommendation to the government to include that proposal, coming from the Flemish government and supported by your party, by the SP.A and by the VLD, in a royal decree that is yet to be drafted and must appear before 1 December 2002.

This is what we ask for in the interests of road safety. I would really not understand if you and the majority parties do not approve those changes.

The vote on the amendment is held. The vote on the amendment is reserved.

De voting over the amendment in over the voorstel van resolutie will later take place. The vote on the reserved amendment and on the draft resolution will take place at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. The nationality debate was just behind the question of whether VLD Minister Verwilghen was publicly flooded back by PS and Ecolo because the prosecutors could not get a blocking right in the acquisition of nationality of dubious persons. The sad compromise is now that the parquets will be allowed to hold the files for a maximum of eight weeks, with all the security risks thereof. When it comes to juvenile crime, it is equally painful for the white knight. PS and Ecolo have ensured that the pre-design of Verwilghen has expired, ended up in the garbage cart. The outdated and lax protection idea continues to dominate everything and there will be no improvement in the field itself.

In the case of the Brussels Language Laws and the supplementary judges, PS, Ecolo and MR have even gotten it so far that Verwilghen has had to swallow the commitment he had made on behalf of the whole government and to which he had committed himself in writing, in particular to limit the addition of dozens of single French-speaking judges over time. A more painful humiliation was hard to imagine. Yesterday came the blow on the firepile. Their

Just as Durant Heinzmann never should have appointed, so Verwilghen Timmermans should never have appointed, because this lady was manifestly incompetent. Moreover, it is now clear that the State Security Service is not armed at all against the rapidly emerging Islamic fundamentalism, in particular because you, Verwilghen, in the government but fail to get the necessary budgets. Every day it becomes more clear that the VLD, due to the weakness and vertebrate of Verwilghen, is facing an impressive credibility problem, calculated in the so important area of justice and security.

Dear colleagues of the VLD, keep going. The longer you maintain this minister, the worse it will be for you and for your party.

Mr. Speaker, these interpellations were the result of the interesting debate on the evaluation of the Fast-Belg Act. The Minister said in the replica that he acknowledged the problem of a too short advisory term mine and that he would provide a solution to it by sending a circular letter to the parks. I have three comments on this.

First, we had, of course, a lot of other criticisms on the rapid-Belg-law. It is not because one will key something to an advisor term that thus the fundamental comments have been answered.

Second, it is very important that the Minister has acknowledged the problem. This problem, by the way, has caused us all the necessary concerns. See also the jurisprudence and the acts of the Commission on Naturalizations. We are pleased that the problem has been recognized. The clock ticks so that delay is not neutral.

Third, we request that the ordinary motion be voted down because sending a circular letter to address a legal deadline and the consequences of that deadline is, of course, manifestly unlawful. We do not understand that a Minister of Justice chooses such a course unless, of course, he wants to avoid the majority in the House. This will once again give rise to great arbitrariness and controversy on the ground as the parks are facing a law that is clear and a circular letter that will fight the law. In the hierarchy of norms, this is, of course, impossible. This is another blow in the face of all those who are engaged in good governance. This is once again going in the opposite direction.

We expressly request not to approve the ordinary motion.

Beginning of voting / Beginning of voting. Have everyone voted and checked their vote? All the world has voted and verified its vote. End of the vote / End of the vote. Results of the vote / Results of the vote. (Voting/voting 1) Yes 79 Yes No 41 Non Abstentions 6 Abstentions Total 126 Total The simple motion was adopted. Consequently, the motions of recommendation are void. The motion pure and simple is adopted. Consequently, the motions of recommendation are caduque.

Reasons for Abstinence? Reason of abstention?

Mr. Speaker, I worked with Mr. Speaker. by Fred Erdman.

Mr. Speaker, I have a vote agreement with Mr. Jan Eeman.

Mr. Speaker, I have a vote agreement with Mr. Filip Anthuenis.

Mr. Speaker, I have a vote agreement with Mr. Jan Peeters.

Beginning of voting / Beginning of voting. Have everyone voted and checked their vote? All the world has voted and verified its vote. End of the vote / End of the vote. Results of the vote / Results of the vote. (Voting/voting 2) Yes 79 Yes No 41 Non Abstentions 5 Abstentions Total 125 Total The simple motion was adopted. Consequently, the motion of recommendation is void. The motion pure and simple is adopted. Consequently, the motion of recommendation is caduque.

Beginning of voting / Beginning of voting. Has everyone voted and checked their vote? All the world has voted and verified its vote. End of voting / End of voting. Results of the vote / Results of the vote. (Voting/voting 3) Yes 80 Oui No 41 Non Abstentions 5 Abstentions Total 126 Total The simple motion was adopted. Consequently, the motion of recommendation is void. The motion pure and simple is adopted. Consequently, the motion of recommendation is caduque.

There was something wrong with the buttons.

The Chamber takes over, it is handed over to the Senate, and Mrs. Leen says that her button has not worked. If it worked, how would you vote?

and green .

Green on green.

Beginning of voting / Beginning of voting. Has everyone voted and checked their vote? All the world has voted and verified its vote. End of voting / End of voting. Results of the vote / Results of the vote. (Voting/voting 10) Yes 93 Oui No 14 Non Abstentions 19 Abstentions Total 126 Total Consequently, the House adopts the bill. It will be submitted to the Senate as a draft.

Beginning of voting / Beginning of voting. Has everyone voted and checked their vote? All the world has voted and verified its vote. End of voting / End of voting. Results of the vote / Results of the vote. (Voting/voting 11) Yes 126 Oui No 0 Non Abstentions 1 Abstentions Total 127 Total Consequently, the House adopts the draft resolution. It will be notified to the Government.

Dear colleagues, I announce that next week the plasma screens will start working.

However, I ask you to be patient and to express your desire for forgiveness if things do not go smoothly.

Dear colleagues, you know that the next week, a series of our colleagues have important obligations. I will make a special arrangement so that it does not affect the voting arrangements and the like.

Next week, the fellow mayors will be invited to the royal palace. I will endeavour to provide a common means of transport, back and forth.